Jump to content

Daniel There Must Be Something You Can Do


Recommended Posts

Hey Daniel, This is regarding the WSOP and its regular events. What in the world is up with the starting chip amounts? It seems they are doing it a chip for every dollar. So the first event after the employee event is the 1,500 dollar NL HOLD EM in which they are going to give us 1,500 in starting chips. Now I know a lot of this has to do with the fact that they are trying to speed up the tournament but you lose one decent pot in the beginning and you are already short stacked almost. If someone were to build a nice stack then midway to the end the structure is great due to the 60 minute levels and small increment jumps in blinds. but the beginning is what the problem is with our extremely low starting chip amount. I mean the Bike for their tournaments have been giving 10 times the buy-in for the starting chip amount and even at the Bellagio since the buy-ins were higher they would still at least give us double the buy-in, in chips. I just can't believe they are going to do a chip for every dollar you pay.Now I know you are on the committee for the WSOP so my question is, is there anything you can do about this or is it too late? Or have the poker players on the committee even brought this up ever? Thanks for listening and reading this if you ever do and you have been great for the poker world. For all the other posters, any input on this is more than welcome as well, would like to see what you guys think about this as well.As for me, this is my first post here. I am a regular on 2 + 2 but look forward to posting here as well and contributing whenever I can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What are the blinds like for the 1,500 starting stack? Never played in a big event so I'm unaware.
They are going to start it out at 25-25, so they are giving 60 times the big blind. I mean I have seen worse in the local tournaments or the daily tournaments at casinos but the lowest I ever see nowadays is 40 times the big blind and that is for the 100 dollar and lower buy-ins.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum. As for the starting stacks, they haven't changed. The WSOP has always been run that way and it isn't a really big problem. The problem lies in that there should be precisely zero $1500 buy in events. These events will get 1500 plus entrants which is nice, but where do we draw the line on the buy in. In 98' the SMALLEST buy in was $2000 and now it's $1000? The buy in's need to go UP not down. The $3000 tournament will start you off with 3000 in chips and 25-25 blinds. Not bad. At the rate things are going, next year there will be a $100 buy in WSOP event were everyone gets 100 in chips with 25-25 blinds. Wouldn't that be fun? :club:

Link to post
Share on other sites
At the rate things are going, next year there will be a $100 buy in WSOP event were everyone gets 100 in chips with 25-25 blinds. Wouldn't that be fun? :D
Actually it would :club: . you would have a 5,000 player tournament end in 3 hours. Put up 100 dollars get lucky and win close to 200,000 in a few hours, sounds good you should suggest it next meeting :D .
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it would :club: . you would have a 5,000 player tournament end in 3 hours. Put up 100 dollars get lucky and win close to 200,000 in a few hours, sounds good you should suggest it next meeting :D .
Even a donk like me could be rollin' around with a bracelet.
Link to post
Share on other sites

how stupid is the stud hi/lo tournament, theres only one this year an its $1000. I i dont see the point in even having this if thats the best they can do. Why $1000? do they think this will attract alot of newcomers to the game, not likely. If you are only going to have one stud hi/lo tournament why not make it a 5k buy in and make more money off of it because the number of entrys would pbly be pretty close at either buy in..One stupid qustion I hae Daniel is who were the first two members of this forum?i see you were number 3 :club:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Welcome to the forum. As for the starting stacks, they haven't changed. The WSOP has always been run that way and it isn't a really big problem. The problem lies in that there should be precisely zero $1500 buy in events. These events will get 1500 plus entrants which is nice, but where do we draw the line on the buy in. In 98' the SMALLEST buy in was $2000 and now it's $1000? The buy in's need to go UP not down. The $3000 tournament will start you off with 3000 in chips and 25-25 blinds. Not bad. At the rate things are going, next year there will be a $100 buy in WSOP event were everyone gets 100 in chips with 25-25 blinds. Wouldn't that be fun? :D
Coming from someone that can pay every entrance fee for every event with the cash in your piggy bank I don't think your comment is fair.For some it isn't the buyin amount it is the fact that you can say "i played in the WSOP"The 1k and 1.5k buyins are not taking anything away from the bigger buyins it just means more people can play!I would think that 1k will be the lowest they will have.just my opinion... :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Coming from someone that can pay every entrance fee for every event with the cash in your piggy bank I don't think your comment is fair.For some it isn't the buyin amount it is the fact that you can say "i played in the WSOP"The 1k and 1.5k buyins are not taking anything away from the bigger buyins it just means more people can play!I would think that 1k will be the lowest they will have.just my opinion... :club:
I concur.. $1,500 is quite a lot of money to me.. It's about ½ of every penny I have to my name, including my checking and savings accounts, so to play in an event like that would be a huge deal for me and it would be great to even say "I played in the wsop with some of the greats" even if I don't get deep in the tourney. To a lot of the young aspiring players, I think this is a reasonable amount for buy-in and they shouldn't make them higher.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I concur.. $1,500 is quite a lot of money to me.. It's about ½ of every penny I have to my name, including my checking and savings accounts, so to play in an event like that would be a huge deal for me and it would be great to even say "I played in the wsop with some of the greats" even if I don't get deep in the tourney. To a lot of the young aspiring players, I think this is a reasonable amount for buy-in and they shouldn't make them higher.
:club:
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think either the first event or the last event before the main event should be $1500 NL. Given the length of the WSOP perhaps both could be. After that 1 $2000 dollar buy-in in limit holdem and 1 in omaha/8. That would give everyone who wants the "thrill of the WSOP" a chance to play without watering it down too much. Also having a jumpoff 1500 no limit will give the tournament staff logistical practice for the main event. My $2-hey if the buyins should go up why can't the value of my opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything wrong with having one or two low buy-in events at the series to give the less experienced players a chance to play, but I do agree that it's going a little far. Right now, there are 24 hold 'em events scheduled that have a buy-in of $2000 or less. Are you really telling me that all of those winners deserve bracelets? I don't think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see anything wrong with having one or two low buy-in events at the series to give the less experienced players a chance to play, but I do agree that it's going a little far. Right now, there are 24 hold 'em events scheduled that have a buy-in of $2000 or less. Are you really telling me that all of those winners deserve bracelets? I don't think so.
i kinda agree have 1 low buyin for every poker "game" it would draw a nice crowd!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I concur.. $1,500 is quite a lot of money to me.. It's about ½ of every penny I have to my name, including my checking and savings accounts, so to play in an event like that would be a huge deal for me and it would be great to even say "I played in the wsop with some of the greats" even if I don't get deep in the tourney. To a lot of the young aspiring players, I think this is a reasonable amount for buy-in and they shouldn't make them higher.
I think you're kinda missing the point. If the WSOP adds a billion small buy-in events it looses it's prestige. You'll quickly find that the pros won't play in all the events and saying "I played in the WSOP" will be like saying "I played at the Bellagio" when you were at the 3-6 LHE tables.Besides if you say you played in the WSOP everyone is going to think ME anyway.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i kinda agree have 1 low buyin for every poker "game" it would draw a nice crowd!
I like this idea.Plus, for a pro to win a huge-field low-buyin tourney would be pretty prestigous.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're kinda missing the point. Besides if you say you played in the WSOP everyone is going to think ME anyway.
Agreed.Remember, there will be live satellites to every event, so you could win your way into an event with as little as $110.GL
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't afford the $1500 buy-in, but even I agree that it's gotten a bit ridiculous...The WSOP was not started for the common man... it's for poker's elite...As much as I would like to someday play in a WSOP event, it won't mean anything if they keep watering down the entry criteria so much..I think entry fees should be going up, to keep the field sizes smaller...however, in the corporate driven world we live in, I know Harrah's is going to squeeze this lemon for every drop of profit they can get out of it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're kinda missing the point. If the WSOP adds a billion small buy-in events it looses it's prestige. You'll quickly find that the pros won't play in all the events and saying "I played in the WSOP" will be like saying "I played at the Bellagio" when you were at the 3-6 LHE tables.Besides if you say you played in the WSOP everyone is going to think ME anyway.
The Bellagio doesn't feature 3-6. 4-8 is as cheap as it gets. :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't afford the $1500 buy-in, but even I agree that it's gotten a bit ridiculous...The WSOP was not started for the common man... it's for poker's elite...As much as I would like to someday play in a WSOP event, it won't mean anything if they keep watering down the entry criteria so much..I think entry fees should be going up, to keep the field sizes smaller...however, in the corporate driven world we live in, I know Harrah's is going to squeeze this lemon for every drop of profit they can get out of it...
This is amazing. I think everyone should get down off their high horse and remember for 1 second that poker is about MONEY, not prestige. Let the top Pro's worry about prestige, and the rest of us look for the best ways to increase our bankrolls and increase our edge in the game. The poker world should be thanking, even embracing corporations like Harrah's for helping to make poker as popular as it is. You should think of the unlimited "action" that occurs in the side games now at the WSOP, because it does draw such a huge crowd. It may not be "convenient" for the top 10 pro's in the world, as it's harder now to chase bracelets, but you know what? They're doing just fine, and between the book deals, television consulting, web site promotions etc., big corporations have made these pro's "celebrities". Not too shabby. And at the end of it all, if they're really hurting for a big buy in event, there's always the 50k horse event (I can't imagine too many amateur players will be entering that one) , and they always have the "big game" at the Bellagio, as well as the 25k Bellagio event on the WPT. B)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Coming from someone that can pay every entrance fee for every event with the cash in your piggy bank I don't think your comment is fair.For some it isn't the buyin amount it is the fact that you can say "i played in the WSOP"The 1k and 1.5k buyins are not taking anything away from the bigger buyins it just means more people can play!I would think that 1k will be the lowest they will have.just my opinion... :club:
I went to the WSOP for the first time in 1996. I tried to win my way into the main event through the super satellite system. I came up two seats short, but it was still an awesome experience. I couldn't afford to play in any of the tournaments that year, or even in 19997. It was tough to pony up that kind of money. Finally, in 1998 I won a satellite against Todd Brunson and Mike Matusow into the $2000 buy in Pot limit hold'em event. I had no intentions of playing as I needed the money, but Todd Brunson offered to buy 25% of me in the tournament so I decided to play it... and won it! The point of this little story is that it was hard to get into the WSOP and that's what made it special.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like it either.But there's one word that sums this all up:MoneyJust like online poker. Lower the buy-in and more people will join. I suppose the equilibirum of attendants to buy in costs is $1500.NL Hold'em is what brings in the bacon. The more NL Hold'em tournaments you have, the more money you'll get. The only way to alter the schedule is by not playing in the NL Hold'em tourneys. If enough people move to another game so that NL Hold'em is less profitable, then there will be less NL Hold'em tournaments. Speak with your wallet, not words :club:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I went to the WSOP for the first time in 1996. I tried to win my way into the main event through the super satellite system. I came up two seats short, but it was still an awesome experience. I couldn't afford to play in any of the tournaments that year, or even in 19997. It was tough to pony up that kind of money. Finally, in 1998 I won a satellite against Todd Brunson and Mike Matusow into the $2000 buy in Pot limit hold'em event. I had no intentions of playing as I needed the money, but Todd Brunson offered to buy 25% of me in the tournament so I decided to play it... and won it! The point of this little story is that it was hard to get into the WSOP and that's what made it special.
Thats pretty cool. Though I am sure a big part of that thrilling experience was that you not only played in but you won the tourney. :club::D:D
Link to post
Share on other sites
I went to the WSOP for the first time in 1996. I tried to win my way into the main event through the super satellite system. I came up two seats short, but it was still an awesome experience. I couldn't afford to play in any of the tournaments that year, or even in 19997. It was tough to pony up that kind of money. Finally, in 1998 I won a satellite against Todd Brunson and Mike Matusow into the $2000 buy in Pot limit hold'em event. I had no intentions of playing as I needed the money, but Todd Brunson offered to buy 25% of me in the tournament so I decided to play it... and won it! The point of this little story is that it was hard to get into the WSOP and that's what made it special.
good storyI wasn't trying to be an *** about what I wrote. I would much sooner win my way into the wsop than buy my way into it. your comment was kinda like saying a super rich man with a 200 foot yacht says that 20 foot cruisers should not be allowed on the water!where as most people would have to save for many years to able to buy that 20 foot boat. and the rich dude signs a check and floats away!BUT what one of the 2 people would enjoy their boat more!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
good storyI wasn't trying to be an *** about what I wrote. I would much sooner win my way into the wsop than buy my way into it. your comment was kinda like saying a super rich man with a 200 foot yacht says that 20 foot cruisers should not be allowed on the water!where as most people would have to save for many years to able to buy that 20 foot boat. and the rich dude signs a check and floats away!BUT what one of the 2 people would enjoy their boat more!!
look at the lsit of events in 2006 compared to five years ago, now almost every event is NL and the buyin in usually 1500-2000. They have almost completely wiped out the other forms of poker. They don't need half the events to be $1500-2000 NL events. A few is fine, but they have diluted what it means to win a bracelet.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I went to the WSOP for the first time in 1996. I tried to win my way into the main event through the super satellite system. I came up two seats short, but it was still an awesome experience. I couldn't afford to play in any of the tournaments that year, or even in 19997. It was tough to pony up that kind of money. Finally, in 1998 I won a satellite against Todd Brunson and Mike Matusow into the $2000 buy in Pot limit hold'em event. I had no intentions of playing as I needed the money, but Todd Brunson offered to buy 25% of me in the tournament so I decided to play it... and won it! The point of this little story is that it was hard to get into the WSOP and that's what made it special.
That is a great story, and I can only hope that someday I may have the skill (and a little bit of luck, lol) to be that successful, thank you DN, for all that you bring to poker :D My point, was simply that the face of poker has changed. Whereas the WSOP was formerly restricted to the very best, now it's open to everyone. It's a different animal now. I'm asking, "why is this so bad?" Personally I think it's a very good thing. You invite people from all walks of life to take part in the 'largest" poker extravaganza in the world!The WSOP may no longer have the largest buy in's but it has the largest prize pools (ever), and is still viewed as the most prestigious poker event in existance. Just look at the shear numbers of people that have been attending in the past few years. 5 years ago, Carlos Mortensen took 1.5 mil for finishing first. Last year, Hachem took 7 mil! The prize pools are enormous now. You no longer need to win an event, by just cashing you can have a huge pay day. I mean, look at the popularity that this has all generated! And a huge part of all this is obviously due to television, internet poker, but also due to the lower buy in events, which allow the average person a chance to compete with the pros. That's the huge draw to the game, "anyone" can be a winner. New players are drawn to the game, generating prize pools that could not even be fathomed 5 or 6 years ago. My whole point is that poker is a game of "money", and the shear amount of money that is in play at the WSOP is simply astounding. It may not seem as "prestigous, or special" as it used to be to play in the WSOP, but how much money is "prestige" worth to you? I mean, is it worth throwing away real "revenue" to preserve the prestige of the event? Because that's exactly what we'd be doing if we eliminate the smaller buy in events. The smaller buy in events attract people, these people have an amazing experience and can say they played in the WSOP, and they stick around to play in some of the larger events, generating these enormous prize pools, which we've come to associate with the WSOP these past few years. Why cut that off by eliminating smaller buy in events? By eliminating smaller events, we cut out a large portion of the players , thereby elimating a lot of the "action" in both the tournaments as well as the lucrative side games.If we eliminate the smaller buy in events and drive up the entry fees, we will draw down the entrants, thereby creating smaller prize pools, and possibly restoring the WSOP to the way it used to be; for the elite only. The question I pose to the forum is this: "Is this good for poker?" My vote is "no" for the reason's I've stated above. After all, this is a "world" series of poker, something that really has not been realized until recently. Look at this past year, an Australian won the main event! That's "world" class folks. In summary, the smaller buy in events allow everyone the opportunity to play, thus making the game appealing to the masses. This attracts players/ money, which is the fundamental reason we play poker in the first place; "to win as much money as possible". :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...